User talk:71.174.127.2

December 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Abomination of desolation are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Abomination of desolation that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Abomination of desolation for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Abomination of desolation, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Abomination of desolation. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeatedly deleting material, both on the article and on the TALK PAGE while sounding all righteous? Check out the beam in your eye before commenting on the toothpick in mine.71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeatedly deleting my response to your comment on idolatry?71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.174.127.2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bogus Ban 71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This was about deletion and restoring material on the TALK PAGE of an article on an ongoing discussion. Tgeorgescu kept deleting my response to one of his points. Deletinons are also happening on this, my talk page. That last seems shady at best.

It seems I was dragged into an edit war by Tgeorgescu. For clarification, what is wiki policy on deleting a portion of a discussion on the TALK PAGE of an article, while the discussion is ongoing?

It would seem to be counterproductive to the revert/discuss cycle when your part of the discussion keeps getting deleted - REPEATEDLY.

see below for portions of the discussion. My portion kept getting deleted. As far as I can see, by Tgeorgescu, so that Tgeorgescu's position would look more viable.

Your answer is appreciated - but - based on prior experience - not expected.71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that someone else is now reverting my request to report Tgeorgescu for disruptive editing on this page. does wiki policy allow this?71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.174.127.2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bogus Reason71.174.127.2 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Just Chilling (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No response to original unblock request so am adding another - reasons are the same

It looks like I was dragged into an edit war by Tgeorgescu, in an ongoing TALK PAGE discussion, in order for his position in that discussion to seem more legit then it is.71.174.127.2 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.174.127.2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No damage to wikipedia from unblocking71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked for remainder of block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1)The block is not necessary as I cannot see how engaging in discussion on a talk page, for a locked article, which I am unable to edit, can cause harm.

2)I have been blocked for repeatedly restoring my portion of a discussion on a Talk page. The discussion is ongoing and cannot continue if one person deletes the other persons responses.

I am unclear on what constitutes disruption as engaging in conversation (NOT EDITING an article) should not cause either harm or disruption - I am fairly sure that DELETING portions of an ongoing discussion does cause disruption. That was done by the OTHER guy. I have ZERO interest and intent in doing the same aka deleting OTHER PEOPLES comments. Not doing anything cannot be a cause of harm or disruption.

Since I can't edit the only article I am currently interested in, as it is protected, I can only contribute on the talk page. That is what I believed I was doing when I made my contribution. 71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Tgeorgescu for disruptive editing[edit]

Tgeorgescu made the following comment on idolatry and I responded as below. Tgeorgescu then deleted my response on the TALK PAGE of the article. REPEATEDLY

Can anyone please advise how deleting a response can be considered engaging in revert/discuss?

Comment and my response follows

What do you think of the Islam part? First, it has a notability problem, it has not been shown to be a notable theological claim (WP:SPS sources?). Second, Muslims hate idol worshipers, so being described as such would appall them. The reason for reverts wasn't "Daniel never existed", it was rather "given sources are crappy". If the claim is notable, there should be better sources for it. Otherwise, as it has been said about the Bible: if you torture it enough, it will confess to anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert polemic. We really neither need nor appreciate your lectures on religion. Further disruption will result in you losing the ability to edit your talk page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu, is this anyone you recognize? Thought I heard quacking. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I would not know to name anyone, except Til Eulenspiegel, he is also a Christian fundamentalist, but more of an Afrocentric sort. So I don't believe the IP to be him. @Dlohcierekim: Also Mooters 1563 comes to my mind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never signed up for an ID as a wiki editor and based on my recent treatment I don't think I ever will. So far it has been an abysmal waste of time. Don't expect any money from me on any fund raiser.71.174.127.2 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I already told you, the powers of WP:PAGs are against you, see WP:ONEDAY. So, your previous edits are not welcome and were never welcome here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

h

I never made up anything. Everything I posted on what constitutes idolatry is mainstream or near mainstream. if you disagree then point out the weak points.71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring my response to Tgeorgescu that was deleted on the Abomination of Desolation talk page[edit]

Islam and Idoletry

Abomination in Biblical context refers to idolatry and the worship of other and therefore fake Gods. If there is only One True God (Jews, Christians and Muslims Agree), then the worship of any other God is worshiping an idol.

Jews don't believe that the Christian God is the same as the Jewish one so to them Christians are idolators. Christians disagree on this point.

Muslims who worship toward a building that used to house idols (and may still do since only a select few can get inside), circle around this building and kiss the black stone, which is Allah sacred object, qualify as idolators, both to Jews and Christians.

There are irreconcilable differences between Muslim teachings and Jewish and Christian teachings. Following are two of the biggest

Both New and Old Testament refer to Satan as the "great deceiver", while Muslim are taught that Allah is the "greatest deceiver" http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/cornelius/makr.html Surah 3:54, Allah refers to himself as "Khayrul-Makereen" which correctly translated means "Allah is the greatest of all deceivers." This is verified by looking up the root letters (Meem, Kaaf, and Rah) in an Arabic Dictionary such as Al-Mawrid:

As a Christian I am taught that the title of Jesus is "Lord of Lords and King of Kings". Muslims are taught that the "MOST HATED" name for Allah is "Lord of Lord and King of Kings" Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224 "The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings).”

Based on the above quotes Allah cannot be the same God as that of the Christians and (or) Jews. As a Christian, and based on the above quotes, I believe that Allah is Satan and not God, therefore Allah is a false God, and therefore any worship of him is an abomination and idolatry.

If there is only one God then worship of any other God is worshiping a false God and therefore idolatry. Again: Jews, Christians and Muslims agree on this point.71.174.127.2 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If Muslims consider Jews and Christians idolators why can't the reverse be true?[edit]

The following list of sources were spat out by duckduckgo to the search request "do mulsims consider christians idolators"

If there is only One True God, then the worship of another is worshiping a false god (a false elohim), in other words an idol.

http://talktoislam.com/452/do-muslims-christians-and-jews-worship-the-same-god

Do Muslims, Christians and Jews Worship The Same God?

Short Answer

The answer to this is that theologically Chalcedonian (Trinitarian) creed believes in Jesus's divinity hence practically they don’t worship the same God as Muslims do.

http://raymondibrahim.com/2014/07/07/are-muslims-idolaters/

Conversation between a Muslim and a Christian (I think the Christian won this one)

Following that insult, I knew what he was up to and as expected, he brought up the topic of Christian idolatry.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/karim_marry_christians.htm

On the Quran Contradiction of Marriage to Christian Idolaters

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christians.htm

The Quran considers associating partners with God as the highest form of evil and also views Christians as idolaters and blasphemers for believing in the Trinity and the deity of Christ.71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims consider christians as idolators because of the Trinity / Jews have a similar issue[edit]

Christians consider God to have 3 facets The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Jews have a Bi-nity, in that God has 2 facets, God and the Word of God, as the Old Testament starts with the phrase

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

To Muslims either version of a One True God is wrong and idolatry.71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

idolatry per wikipedia[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry

In Abrahamic religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than God as if it were God. In these and several other monotheistic religions, idolatry has been considered as the "worship of false gods" and is forbidden.[4]

The Islamic concept of idolatry extends beyond polytheism, and includes Christians and Jews as shirk and kufr

Judaism prohibits any form of idolatry.[90] According to its commandments, neither is worship of foreign gods in any form or through icons allowed,71.174.127.2 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.174.127.2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is Crazy 71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open request is needed at a time. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wassel deletes some of my material on the talk page of an article, reason given, block evasion. I was not blocked at the time.

I restored the deleted material and I got blocked.

Kinda Fd up.

Please remove the block71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.174.127.2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Still Waiting for a review 71.174.127.2 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evading your block certainly isn't helping your case. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

see last request for reasons

to Drmies What I am trying to achieve[edit]

Question by Drmies on Admin page. "And I just blocked you for a week for disruption on the talk page. It is patently unclear what you are trying to achieve there. Drmies"

The answer to that would be to add material to improve an article. These material kept getting deleted for bogus reasons. Then I tried to get some sort of consensus on the task page and THAT material kept getting deleted which led to another edit war and a second ban --->>>for material on the talk page.

Now we at the the third block which is again about material on the talk page which I added in order to get consensus. Which was deleted for a bogus reason - said reason being "block evasion" when I was not blocked.

That is how wikipedia is supposed to work right?

Seriously, at this point if I had money that I could either flush down the toilet or donate to wikipedia, the toilet wins hands down.71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a waste; you can always buy beer or cheese with it. What you were adding on the talk page looked like a bunch of rants and random comments. At one point I think you were talking to yourself. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if"71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material would be random if you don't know the context. One section dealt with reasons given for the deletion of the article such as 'original research. If I post material showing it was not original, then that reason goes away. Is that not so? Isn't that how it is "supposed" to work?71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you the exact same thing your Freshman Composition teacher told you after the first paper. Do you understand why it was a C- at best? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page material again deleted[edit]

Reason given

Render unto God what is God's, and Wikipedia what is Wikipedia's

Sorry! But I have nothing to render except some time and effort, which does not seem to be wanted.71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROTLMAO!!!!! Material I wanted to add is already in the article - Just misplaced[edit]

Upon examining the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_desolation

Material that I was trying to add under Section 3.1 was that the Dome of the Rock could be the Abomination of Desolation, is already in the article under Section 3.4. It belongs in Section 3.1

3.4 Nōka interpretation

S. Nōka, a Japanese historicist and futurist, in his book Physical History Forecast 2017-2053[35] claimed that the Abomination of desolation could be the Dome of the Rock established in 692 after 1,290 years from Siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC. And in 2027 (1,335 years from the establishment of Dome of the Rock in 692), the 3rd Jerusalem Temple could be established finally.

Futurism is about Biblical prophecies to take place in the future. Historicism is about Biblical prophecies that are believed to have taken place in the past. This material is about a past event and therefore historicism.

Notice that the guy is a historicist and futurist, but because this material is about a past event it should be under Section 3.1 Historicism. This is where I was trying to add the exact same material (although with more detail and from other sources)

Some RETARDED DUMB ASS DONKEYS thought that this material, already in the article, was "original research" and they are so good at editing and improving articles that they misplaced this material and did not even realize it.

And I will not and CANNOT apologize for calling them that. Ban me all you want.71.174.127.2 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So here I am, being constantly bad mouthed and banned for trying to add material to an article that is already there (just misplaced) because it is original research, garbage, spam etc etc etc... I can JUST FEEL all that COMPETENCE from all those EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE known as wiki editors - ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!71.174.127.2 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gets better[edit]

The RETARDED DONKEY BRAIN went in and removed the article material that was already there (and passed muster)

Must be because he saw my previous post above, and tried to hide the fact that he is the most EXCEPTIONAL of ALL RETARDED DONKEY BRAINS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abomination_of_desolation&action=history

Ban me for calling him! Don't care.71.174.127.2 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is a big difference between a block and a ban. As a Wikipedia editor you should really know this. If you don't read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF and use our terminology appropriately, I will revoke access to your talk page and you'll have to call people "retarded donkey brains" on Facebook or Twitter. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.